If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The NDP, by far, have the most fiscally responsible record of any federal party | rabble.ca
By Toby Sanger, Sept 30, 2015

I examined the records of all provincial and federal governments from as far back as consistent data are readily available (1981) against relevant major fiscal and economic indicators. This included a combined 158 years of Conservative federal and government, 119 years of Liberal government and 55 years of NDP government. The results may be surprising.

NDP governments have been far more "fiscally responsible" overall than either Conservative or Liberal governments or also rank on top for a number of other key economic indicators.

For instance, on key fiscal measures:

NDP governments have balanced their budgets 40 per cent (or 22 of the 55) years they've been in office, compared to just 33 per cent for Conservatives and 23 per cent for Liberal governments.
Deficits under NDP governments have averaged 0.5 per cent of GDP compared to 1.1 per cent for Conservative governments and 1.3 per cent for Liberals.
...but Conservative governments have increased debt/GDP ratios at a higher rate than either Liberal or NDP governments.
Far from being big spenders, NDP governments have actually averaged slightly lower spending as a share of ...
NDP governments have also not been big taxers: their ...
...If these two provinces are excluded, Conservative governments fare considerably worse and the NDP fare even better.

When only provincial governments are considered, NDP governments still average lower deficits, ...

A long tradition of fiscal responsibility

This may be at odds with the media stereotype of NDP governments... But this tradition of fiscal responsibility and strong economic management is very consistent with the NDP's origins and history in western Canada. ...

Until Brad Wall took over Sask, it was a mess. When we lived in BC, the NDP put BC in huge debt, and made doing business difficult _ and who can forget Rae days, please don't cover up for their ineptness!

Until Brad Wall took over Sask, it was a mess. When we lived in BC, the NDP put BC in huge debt, and made doing business difficult _ and who can forget Rae days, please don't cover up for their ineptness!

"Rae Days" were an example of the kind of austerity policies normally practiced by the right, but carried out by the NDP on a more moderate scale. When the Tories came back into power under Harris, the joke was that they made every day into a Rae Day.

Until Brad Wall took over Sask, it was a mess. When we lived in BC, the NDP put BC in huge debt, and made doing business difficult _ and who can forget Rae days, please don't cover up for their ineptness!

"Rae Days" were an example of the kind of austerity policies normally practiced by the right, but carried out by the NDP on a more moderate scale. When the Tories came back into power under Harris, the joke was that they made every day into a Rae Day.

The NDP dont have any plan, and I dont like all this debt being downloaded to my children and theirs , Get those idiots out!

^ Well, okay, but just so you understand, according to conservative theory, in order to avoid further downgrading, we need to introduce spending cuts along the lines of "Rae Days", or even more drastic than that.

^ Well, okay, but just so you understand, according to conservative theory, in order to avoid further downgrading, we need to introduce spending cuts along the lines of "Rae Days", or even more drastic than that.

So, what\s your point. Do you want us to pay more to borrow, and how are we seen as business friendly if that happen..sheesh

^ Well, okay, but just so you understand, according to conservative theory, in order to avoid further downgrading, we need to introduce spending cuts along the lines of "Rae Days", or even more drastic than that.

Or bring in a sales tax. Or some combination thereof. In any case, the NDP does need to establish some path back to balanced budgets, or at least much smaller deficits. To this point, they haven't, and you can't really argue otherwise. You can argue about what your preferred route is, but at this point the NDP hasn't even put the car in gear. By all appearances, they've been banking on a big run-up in oil prices, no different than PC governments past, and that doesn't look likely any time soon.

^ Well, okay, but just so you understand, according to conservative theory, in order to avoid further downgrading, we need to introduce spending cuts along the lines of "Rae Days", or even more drastic than that.

So, what\s your point. Do you want us to pay more to borrow, and how are we seen as business friendly if that happen..sheesh

You're not making any sense so far - to me. You said: "and who can forget Rae days, please don't cover up for their ineptness!". Sounds like you are against government austerity and against government taking on more debt.

So, say the electorate ditch the NDP as you wish for, what do you think the next political party will do? Some thoughtful detail please. Platitudes might work on some people but I believe many people hear just get tired of hearing them.

^ Well, okay, but just so you understand, according to conservative theory, in order to avoid further downgrading, we need to introduce spending cuts along the lines of "Rae Days", or even more drastic than that.

So, what\s your point. Do you want us to pay more to borrow, and how are we seen as business friendly if that happen..sheesh

You're not making any sense so far - to me. You said: "and who can forget Rae days, please don't cover up for their ineptness!". Sounds like you are against government austerity and against government taking on more debt.

So, say the electorate ditch the NDP as you wish for, what do you think the next political party will do? Some thoughtful detail please. Platitudes might work on some people but I believe many people hear just get tired of hearing them.

Comparing the current government of Alberta to a government in another province 25 years ago is not very relevant. However, if you really want to discuss bad financial management by other provinces 25 years or so ago, you might want to first look right next door at Saskatchewan where the conservatives were the ones running up the debt. I am not sure it is any more relevant, but at least it is closer. However, I also realize it probably doesn't fit the stereotypical view you are trying to convey of the NDP being poor financial managers and the Conservatives being good ones.

^ Well, okay, but just so you understand, according to conservative theory, in order to avoid further downgrading, we need to introduce spending cuts along the lines of "Rae Days", or even more drastic than that.

Or bring in a sales tax. Or some combination thereof. In any case, the NDP does need to establish some path back to balanced budgets, or at least much smaller deficits. To this point, they haven't, and you can't really argue otherwise. You can argue about what your preferred route is, but at this point the NDP hasn't even put the car in gear. By all appearances, they've been banking on a big run-up in oil prices, no different than PC governments past, and that doesn't look likely any time soon.

They tied their own hands by saying that a sales tax wasn't in the cards. The carbon tax and higher income taxes for some go part of the way towards a systemic approach.

Kicking the can down the road is what everyone does though. Eg. I once took a personal finance course from a super conservative teacher who suggested that everyone should aim to pay off their mortgage in 7 or 8 years. How many people, even right wing, conservatively minded people do that? Doing so requires strick financial control and personal austerity.

^ Well, okay, but just so you understand, according to conservative theory, in order to avoid further downgrading, we need to introduce spending cuts along the lines of "Rae Days", or even more drastic than that.

So, what\s your point. Do you want us to pay more to borrow, and how are we seen as business friendly if that happen..sheesh

You're not making any sense so far - to me. You said: "and who can forget Rae days, please don't cover up for their ineptness!". Sounds like you are against government austerity and against government taking on more debt.

So, say the electorate ditch the NDP as you wish for, what do you think the next political party will do? Some thoughtful detail please. Platitudes might work on some people but I believe many people hear just get tired of hearing them.

Comparing the current government of Alberta to a government in another province 25 years ago is not very relevant. However, if you really want to discuss bad financial management by other provinces 25 years or so ago, you might want to first look right next door at Saskatchewan where the conservatives were the ones running up the debt. I am not sure it is any more relevant, but at least it is closer. However, I also realize it probably doesn't fit the stereotypical view you are trying to convey of the NDP being poor financial managers and the Conservatives being good ones.

Kicking the can down the road is what everyone does though. Eg. I once took a personal finance course from a super conservative teacher who suggested that everyone should aim to pay off their mortgage in 7 or 8 years. How many people, even right wing, conservatively minded people do that?

Problem is, the further down the road you kick that can, the harder it is to clean the mess up eventually. And someone will have to.

Kicking the can down the road is what everyone does though. Eg. I once took a personal finance course from a super conservative teacher who suggested that everyone should aim to pay off their mortgage in 7 or 8 years. How many people, even right wing, conservatively minded people do that?

Problem is, the further down the road you kick that can, the harder it is to clean the mess up eventually. And someone will have to.

Well different parties have different priorities. Some parties think debt is the most important thing and if that means less well off people suffer to achieve that they are fine with that. Of course, usually they themselves are not the less well off who will suffer.

After the great recession a number of European countries went along with the conventional wisdom of austerity, in the belief it would help their economies recover quicker. For a number of reasons the US kept spending and most of the conventional wisdom predicted this would result in economic disaster. What happened instead was the continued government spending helped the US economy recover better, but the austerity kept a number of European countries in recession for a longer time. The level of the debt is not the only factor to be considered in making good economic decisions and no 'Rae days" in the US.

^ Well, okay, but just so you understand, according to conservative theory, in order to avoid further downgrading, we need to introduce spending cuts along the lines of "Rae Days", or even more drastic than that.

So, what\s your point. Do you want us to pay more to borrow, and how are we seen as business friendly if that happen..sheesh

The point is, you are either ideologically confused(ie. simultaneously condemning and extolling austerity, as KC points out above), or you don't know what the term "Rae Days" refers to.

My guess is you just don't like Bob Rae, and you've heard the term "Rae Days" used in a negative way about him, so you thought you'd start tossing it around here, without bothering to familiarize yourself with the meaning.

For future reference: "Rae Days" refers to an AUSTERITY policy, specifically the practice of giving civil servants unpaid days off in order to save money on salaries. While introduced by an NDP government, it was the polar opposite of deficit-spending, with the NDP doing exactly what the right-wing traditionally advocates.

I've said before I like Notely but I think the NDP is hoping against hope that the Oil/Gas sector will be right back in it's stride when the next election cycle rolls around. Things will look rosy and they are probably hoping to gain from that. If that's not the case they will be gone.

I've said before I like Notely but I think the NDP is hoping against hope that the Oil/Gas sector will be right back in it's stride when the next election cycle rolls around. Things will look rosy and they are probably hoping to gain from that. If that's not the case they will be gone.

I think it will also depend on her next step on the carbon tax. I'll give her kudos for coming out about the pipeline to BC, she didn't get a lot of backing from the feds ( of course not) she should be wary of being so quick to do his bidding!

Well different parties have different priorities. Some parties think debt is the most important thing and if that means less well off people suffer to achieve that they are fine with that. Of course, usually they themselves are not the less well off who will suffer.

After the great recession a number of European countries went along with the conventional wisdom of austerity, in the belief it would help their economies recover quicker. For a number of reasons the US kept spending and most of the conventional wisdom predicted this would result in economic disaster. What happened instead was the continued government spending helped the US economy recover better, but the austerity kept a number of European countries in recession for a longer time. The level of the debt is not the only factor to be considered in making good economic decisions and no 'Rae days" in the US.

I'm not a doctrinaire "austerity now" ideologue. The comparison to Europe is faulty, for a massive number of reasons. All I'm saying is that the NDP have taken no steps towards reducing deficits, because they're entirely depending on energy royalties fixing their problem. That's not a safe bet, as this chart illustrates:

This chart also does a great job demonstrating how Alberta's problem is as much one of revenue generation as it is spending:

Also, your claims about "conventional wisdom" in relation to Europe's issues are not accurate. Most economists predicted that too much austerity was going to be a problem in Europe. Conventional wisdom, at least among economists, was pretty much the opposite of what you claim it was. However, the politics of the EU and especially the German's irrational aversion to debt and hyperinflation got in the way.

Well different parties have different priorities. Some parties think debt is the most important thing and if that means less well off people suffer to achieve that they are fine with that. Of course, usually they themselves are not the less well off who will suffer.

After the great recession a number of European countries went along with the conventional wisdom of austerity, in the belief it would help their economies recover quicker. For a number of reasons the US kept spending and most of the conventional wisdom predicted this would result in economic disaster. What happened instead was the continued government spending helped the US economy recover better, but the austerity kept a number of European countries in recession for a longer time. The level of the debt is not the only factor to be considered in making good economic decisions and no 'Rae days" in the US.

I'm not a doctrinaire "austerity now" ideologue. The comparison to Europe is faulty, for a massive number of reasons. All I'm saying is that the NDP have taken no steps towards reducing deficits, because they're entirely depending on energy royalties fixing their problem. That's not a safe bet, as this chart illustrates:

This chart also does a great job demonstrating how Alberta's problem is as much one of revenue generation as it is spending:

Also, your claims about "conventional wisdom" in relation to Europe's issues are not accurate. Most economists predicted that too much austerity was going to be a problem in Europe. Conventional wisdom, at least among economists, was pretty much the opposite of what you claim it was. However, the politics of the EU and especially the German's irrational aversion to debt and hyperinflation got in the way.

Germany employed an incredible level of government support/subsidization to keep its people working. There was little in the way of austerity measures enacted there.

Germany employed an incredible level of government support/subsidization to keep its people working. There was little in the way of austerity measures enacted there.

No, because it didn't need it. The Germans were already running a pretty tight ship. However, Germans essentially controlled the ECB, and the ECB prematurely raised interest rates in 2011, which precipitated the Euro crisis and tipped the continent back in to recession. And the Germans were also instrumental in forcing punishing austerity on Portugal, Greece, Spain, and others. And Germany's massive current account surplus is a central problem in how the Euro is constructed and operates.

Premier Rachel Notley’s popularity among Albertans has slid in a new poll.

The most recent Angus Reid Institute survey of provincial premiers’ popularity shows Notley with 28 per cent approval in June.

That’s a drop of three points from the 31 per cent approval the NDP premier posted in three successive polls by the company between September 2016 and March of this year.

Her disapproval rating is 62 per cent.

In a news release, Angus Reid executive director Shachi Kurl said the movement toward a united conservative party in Alberta and the prospect of a British Columbia NDP government that will try to block the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion may be hurting Notley.

“Notley has been vigorously defending the project in the name of Alberta’s economic interests, but it may not be enough,” said Kurl.

Notley’s showing puts her tied for second with Newfoundland and Labrador’s Dwight Ball in the least-popular premier sweepstakes. Ontario’s Kathleen Wynne continues to have the lowest approval, at 15 per cent.

I recognize the formidable challenge the Notley government faces in getting re-elected in two years time. But it's worth noting that Angus Reid found Nova Scotia Premier Stephen McNeil had a 27% approval rating in March 2017, and his Liberal government got re-elected with a reduced majority two months later.

Not at all. ..Blue collar tradesman first , I believed in the value upgraded , making products of our resources and not stripping top soil . Her push for a pipeline to the west coast Flys in the face , stripping top soil to fuel the communists machine . I don't remember her talking of new taxes ...in fact during the campaign she promised " no new taxes "...she lied about everything.

It's OK champking, we forgive you for helping vote in a lefty and supporting the socialists and liberals.

We always knew that you love being a lefty with all your heart and soul like Trump did for years. Did you invite the Clintons to your wedding too? LOL

I'm Liberal at heart ..much like the founding fathers . More libertarian....by far not a leftist .
You should read what K.C posted in another thread but today's Liberals are not real Liberals nor are today's Conservative real conservatives .

Main reason I voted Notley was to remove the old gaurd, the 43 dynasty I felt become too self entitled, too corrupt.

The Angus Reid poll is garbage - it was online and a survey of Angus Reid forum subscribers. It's not a random sample in any way. That said, while that poll might be biased to some extent, there's no denying that Notley's not super popular. I only question to what degree.

My personal opinion is that if the Wildrose or PC's had won the last election, we'd be in the exact same place economically, even further behind on social and environmental fronts, with no plan for the future beyond banking on oil. They'd probably have a higher approval rating. Just look next door. Saskatchewan is in shambles yet Brad has a way higher approval rating. Doesn't mean he's doing any good. I believe despite Notley's poor approval rating, she's doing a better job than the alternatives would have. She mostly has the wrong label attached to her name.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

^Notley is a very smart woman, but she works for the wrong party - she can't make any of the reforms we desperately need to bring under control the spiraling public service costs, because she is under the thumb of her union donors / leaders. The carbon tax was incredibly stupid policy making, a classic case of ivory tower elites not understanding politics or business - if she had run on that policy, she would not have won the election (even with all the outrage, rightfully so, at the PC's).

I honestly believe it's the carbon tax that's wildly unpopular. We live in some weird bubble that doesn't realize that other than a couple western provinces and the US, carbon is starting to get taxed in most western markets, and often way higher. We're on the right side of this one. We were on the right side with acid rain, with the ozone layer, and we'll be on the right side here. Locals feel bitter because they believe the carbon tax is what's holding them back from insta-gravy oil jobs, when we were at the mercy of a global market that's controlled by outside forces.

Taxing carbon and making the rough slog into broadly diversifying our energy industries will be a boon down the line. Folks hurting now (and those that don't hurt at all but like to complain) will see that sooner than later in the grand scheme of things.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

I honestly believe it's the carbon tax that's wildly unpopular. We live in some weird bubble that doesn't realize that other than a couple western provinces and the US, carbon is starting to get taxed in most western markets, and often way higher. We're on the right side of this one. We were on the right side with acid rain, with the ozone layer, and we'll be on the right side here. Locals feel bitter because they believe the carbon tax is what's holding them back from insta-gravy oil jobs, when we were at the mercy of a global market that's controlled by outside forces.

Taxing carbon and making the rough slog into broadly diversifying our energy industries will be a boon down the line. Folks hurting now (and those that don't hurt at all but like to complain) will see that sooner than later in the grand scheme of things.

Can you really say that Albertan's are consuming less because of a carbon tax then fine. If not it's useless! It just means more debt .
It's up to the free market ..if consumers want organic food , they get organic. If they want to be healthy or drive electric cars it's up to them. It's not up to the almighty government and increasing their slush fund.

I didn't need subsidies or a tax to buy solar panels. All Nutley done is take money from me , so I can't do the right thing . Meanwhile she jet sets and spews more carbon than us all. She promotes stripping top soil , an industry that pollutes more than us all...more than the world's largest city's like Tokyo ....it's money and greed to her , to fund her bloated burocracy. Her lavish lifestyle

I honestly believe it's the carbon tax that's wildly unpopular. We live in some weird bubble that doesn't realize that other than a couple western provinces and the US, carbon is starting to get taxed in most western markets, and often way higher. We're on the right side of this one. We were on the right side with acid rain, with the ozone layer, and we'll be on the right side here. Locals feel bitter because they believe the carbon tax is what's holding them back from insta-gravy oil jobs, when we were at the mercy of a global market that's controlled by outside forces.

Taxing carbon and making the rough slog into broadly diversifying our energy industries will be a boon down the line. Folks hurting now (and those that don't hurt at all but like to complain) will see that sooner than later in the grand scheme of things.

Can you really say that Albertan's are consuming less because of a carbon tax then fine. If not it's useless! It just means more debt .
It's up to the free market ..if consumers want organic food , they get organic. If they want to be healthy or drive electric cars it's up to them. It's not up to the almighty government and increasing their slush fund.

I didn't need subsidies or a tax to buy solar panels. All Nutley done is take money from me , so I can't do the right thing . Meanwhile she jet sets and spews more carbon than us all. She promotes stripping top soil , an industry that pollutes more than us all...more than the world's largest city's like Tokyo ....it's money and greed to her , to fund her bloated burocracy. Her lavish lifestyle

Did we get our oil sands developments by leaving it to the free markets? No. We have a mixed economy.

If we don't raise taxes, what exactly do we cut and how much will that save?

I honestly believe it's the carbon tax that's wildly unpopular. We live in some weird bubble that doesn't realize that other than a couple western provinces and the US, carbon is starting to get taxed in most western markets, and often way higher. We're on the right side of this one. We were on the right side with acid rain, with the ozone layer, and we'll be on the right side here. Locals feel bitter because they believe the carbon tax is what's holding them back from insta-gravy oil jobs, when we were at the mercy of a global market that's controlled by outside forces.

Taxing carbon and making the rough slog into broadly diversifying our energy industries will be a boon down the line. Folks hurting now (and those that don't hurt at all but like to complain) will see that sooner than later in the grand scheme of things.

Can you really say that Albertan's are consuming less because of a carbon tax then fine. If not it's useless! It just means more debt .
It's up to the free market ..if consumers want organic food , they get organic. If they want to be healthy or drive electric cars it's up to them. It's not up to the almighty government and increasing their slush fund.

I didn't need subsidies or a tax to buy solar panels. All Nutley done is take money from me , so I can't do the right thing . Meanwhile she jet sets and spews more carbon than us all. She promotes stripping top soil , an industry that pollutes more than us all...more than the world's largest city's like Tokyo ....it's money and greed to her , to fund her bloated burocracy. Her lavish lifestyle

Did we get our oil sands developments by leaving it to the free markets? No. We have a mixed economy.

If we don't raise taxes, what exactly do we cut and how much will that save?

I would stsrt by cutting 50-60% of public sector , look to automate ...I see way to many government workers drag their feet , only in it for the paycheck ., they know their protected and do as little as possible . Mostly grumpy faces

Many departments blow their budgets , wast the money cause they worried funding get cut or no increase .

Would keep the public sector on their toes . Have them work hard ,...or lose their job..trim the fat. Similar to how private sector operates

I honestly believe it's the carbon tax that's wildly unpopular. We live in some weird bubble that doesn't realize that other than a couple western provinces and the US, carbon is starting to get taxed in most western markets, and often way higher. We're on the right side of this one. We were on the right side with acid rain, with the ozone layer, and we'll be on the right side here. Locals feel bitter because they believe the carbon tax is what's holding them back from insta-gravy oil jobs, when we were at the mercy of a global market that's controlled by outside forces.

Taxing carbon and making the rough slog into broadly diversifying our energy industries will be a boon down the line. Folks hurting now (and those that don't hurt at all but like to complain) will see that sooner than later in the grand scheme of things.

Can you really say that Albertan's are consuming less because of a carbon tax then fine. If not it's useless! It just means more debt .
It's up to the free market ..if consumers want organic food , they get organic. If they want to be healthy or drive electric cars it's up to them. It's not up to the almighty government and increasing their slush fund.

I didn't need subsidies or a tax to buy solar panels. All Nutley done is take money from me , so I can't do the right thing . Meanwhile she jet sets and spews more carbon than us all. She promotes stripping top soil , an industry that pollutes more than us all...more than the world's largest city's like Tokyo ....it's money and greed to her , to fund her bloated burocracy. Her lavish lifestyle

There'll be no free market when humanity is dead because we made Earth uninhabitable so billionaires can make a few extra billion. There's a reason why the entire planet minus three are united in fighting climate change with the means they have available. The carbon tax started a whopping 6 months ago. If roughneck Albertans choose not to drive their brodozers less, that's their prerogative. The good news is that money is going to fund other cleantech initiatives to push us forward. Those backwater hicks will eventually disappear and the planet will continue on, and if we do our part, we'll still be along for the ride as a species.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

As an aside, I found this to be a rather illuminating piece of information with regards to the growth of the government's spending. Looks like the NDP are already trying to do more with less.

The rate of growth in operating expense will be 2.2% in 2017-18, and 2.7% in 2018-19 and 2019-20. This is well below the projected rate of population growth plus inflation projected for Alberta which is expected to average 3.3% in each of the next three years.

Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

There's a reason why the entire planet minus three are united in fighting climate change with the means they have available.

There's only one country who fits that bill. Nicaragua didn't sign onto the Paris agreement because they thought it didn't go far enough & they didn't want to give tacit approval to what they felt was a half measure at best. Syria is involved in a little more urgently pressing fight that's taking all of their available means. Literally the only country who's not fighting climate change with all they have is the nation most responsible for climate change in the first place as the historical emissions leader.

Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

Syria's in the middle of a civil war and not much is happening there in terms of governmental work (kind of tough to negotiate and join international treaties when sanctions prevent basically all of the country's elite from flying anywhere). And Nicaragua didn't sign on to Paris because they felt it was too weak, didn't go far enough, and wasn't legally binding. So in actuality, it's just "minus one".

^And those that did sign on, most have done absolutely NOTHING to meet their targets. Exactly the same as what happened with Kyoto - lots of talk, lots of bluster, but when it comes to actually telling their populations you have to consume less, ha, yeah right. Only a country lead by liberal academics and childish boy scouts will stuff up their economies / living standards (while other countries who talk the talk without walking it, take all the jobs).

I honestly believe it's the carbon tax that's wildly unpopular. We live in some weird bubble that doesn't realize that other than a couple western provinces and the US, carbon is starting to get taxed in most western markets, and often way higher. We're on the right side of this one. We were on the right side with acid rain, with the ozone layer, and we'll be on the right side here. Locals feel bitter because they believe the carbon tax is what's holding them back from insta-gravy oil jobs, when we were at the mercy of a global market that's controlled by outside forces.

Taxing carbon and making the rough slog into broadly diversifying our energy industries will be a boon down the line. Folks hurting now (and those that don't hurt at all but like to complain) will see that sooner than later in the grand scheme of things.

Can you really say that Albertan's are consuming less because of a carbon tax then fine. If not it's useless! It just means more debt .
It's up to the free market ..if consumers want organic food , they get organic. If they want to be healthy or drive electric cars it's up to them. It's not up to the almighty government and increasing their slush fund.

I didn't need subsidies or a tax to buy solar panels. All Nutley done is take money from me , so I can't do the right thing . Meanwhile she jet sets and spews more carbon than us all. She promotes stripping top soil , an industry that pollutes more than us all...more than the world's largest city's like Tokyo ....it's money and greed to her , to fund her bloated burocracy. Her lavish lifestyle

Did we get our oil sands developments by leaving it to the free markets? No. We have a mixed economy.

If we don't raise taxes, what exactly do we cut and how much will that save?

I would stsrt by cutting 50-60% of public sector , look to automate ...I see way to many government workers drag their feet , only in it for the paycheck ., they know their protected and do as little as possible . Mostly grumpy faces

Many departments blow their budgets , wast the money cause they worried funding get cut or no increase .

Would keep the public sector on their toes . Have them work hard ,...or lose their job..trim the fat. Similar to how private sector operates

Yes, I am sure that is the solution - just lay everyone off. The profitable corporations like RBC also continue to lay off people, so soon no jobs and no taxes because we will all earn $NIL so we will pay $NIL taxes, then no government and no government services because there will be no money to pay for any of that. Kids don't really need an education do they? Sick people - hospitals and doctors, well I guess no money for that either. I guess we eventually wont really need RBC either if we don't have any money to save or spend anymore. All sounds like a great idea hey?

Yeah, I mean look at all the shrinkage in available jobs in Seattle since they put in their $15 minimum wage.

Oh.

Wait.

Seattle's $15-an-hour minimum wage law has boosted pay for restaurant workers without costing jobs, according to a study released Tuesday.

"When we passed the $15 minimum wage, we were warned the economy would tank, jobs would dry up, and employers would flee," Murray said. "Today, Seattle's economy is the strongest it has ever been, unemployment is at a historically low rate, and employers are competing for employees."
Seattle's unemployment rate fell to 2.6 percent over the last two years, Murray said, and restaurants were among the city's fastest growing industries, with more than 33,000 workers in 2016.

I honestly believe it's the carbon tax that's wildly unpopular. We live in some weird bubble that doesn't realize that other than a couple western provinces and the US, carbon is starting to get taxed in most western markets, and often way higher. We're on the right side of this one. We were on the right side with acid rain, with the ozone layer, and we'll be on the right side here. Locals feel bitter because they believe the carbon tax is what's holding them back from insta-gravy oil jobs, when we were at the mercy of a global market that's controlled by outside forces.

Taxing carbon and making the rough slog into broadly diversifying our energy industries will be a boon down the line. Folks hurting now (and those that don't hurt at all but like to complain) will see that sooner than later in the grand scheme of things.

Can you really say that Albertan's are consuming less because of a carbon tax then fine. If not it's useless! It just means more debt .
It's up to the free market ..if consumers want organic food , they get organic. If they want to be healthy or drive electric cars it's up to them. It's not up to the almighty government and increasing their slush fund.

I didn't need subsidies or a tax to buy solar panels. All Nutley done is take money from me , so I can't do the right thing . Meanwhile she jet sets and spews more carbon than us all. She promotes stripping top soil , an industry that pollutes more than us all...more than the world's largest city's like Tokyo ....it's money and greed to her , to fund her bloated burocracy. Her lavish lifestyle

Did we get our oil sands developments by leaving it to the free markets? No. We have a mixed economy.

If we don't raise taxes, what exactly do we cut and how much will that save?

I would stsrt by cutting 50-60% of public sector , look to automate ...I see way to many government workers drag their feet , only in it for the paycheck ., they know their protected and do as little as possible . Mostly grumpy faces

Many departments blow their budgets , wast the money cause they worried funding get cut or no increase .

Would keep the public sector on their toes . Have them work hard ,...or lose their job..trim the fat. Similar to how private sector operates

Yes, I am sure that is the solution - just lay everyone off. The profitable corporations like RBC also continue to lay off people, so soon no jobs and no taxes because we will all earn $NIL so we will pay $NIL taxes, then no government and no government services because there will be no money to pay for any of that. Kids don't really need an education do they? Sick people - hospitals and doctors, well I guess no money for that either. I guess we eventually wont really need RBC either if we don't have any money to save or spend anymore. All sounds like a great idea hey?

Parents can home school ...and like mentioned in another thread . Doctors can perform surgery a continent away , using robots . It opens doors, a greater selection of care . Automating buses....or even like China they develop a LRT that Fellowes a white line on the road ....no need for tracks , it's costly.

Government workers don't really add to the tax base , they being paid with tax money ....

Being a big government city I know you guys resist the idea . But 50% less government workers is less using our roads , less maintenance, less wear and tear . ...less pollution ☺ in turn needing less taxes ☺

^because Alberta is the same as Seattle (???). Why not raise it to $100 per hour and make everyone rich, if it aint going to have an impact?

How would Alberta's differences from Seattle change the outcome? Do you have a real-world example to refute mine? Or are you just gonna spout regressive conservative rhetoric & make absurd claims?

Oh. Wait. It's you. You can't even read a power bill, nor determine the difference between an actual news story & an editorial scribbled by a stooge. Consider my request for further elucidation retracted, because we all know you're never going to be able to provide it.

Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

I honestly believe it's the carbon tax that's wildly unpopular. We live in some weird bubble that doesn't realize that other than a couple western provinces and the US, carbon is starting to get taxed in most western markets, and often way higher. We're on the right side of this one. We were on the right side with acid rain, with the ozone layer, and we'll be on the right side here. Locals feel bitter because they believe the carbon tax is what's holding them back from insta-gravy oil jobs, when we were at the mercy of a global market that's controlled by outside forces.

Taxing carbon and making the rough slog into broadly diversifying our energy industries will be a boon down the line. Folks hurting now (and those that don't hurt at all but like to complain) will see that sooner than later in the grand scheme of things.

Can you really say that Albertan's are consuming less because of a carbon tax then fine. If not it's useless! It just means more debt .
It's up to the free market ..if consumers want organic food , they get organic. If they want to be healthy or drive electric cars it's up to them. It's not up to the almighty government and increasing their slush fund.

I didn't need subsidies or a tax to buy solar panels. All Nutley done is take money from me , so I can't do the right thing . Meanwhile she jet sets and spews more carbon than us all. She promotes stripping top soil , an industry that pollutes more than us all...more than the world's largest city's like Tokyo ....it's money and greed to her , to fund her bloated burocracy. Her lavish lifestyle

Did we get our oil sands developments by leaving it to the free markets? No. We have a mixed economy.

If we don't raise taxes, what exactly do we cut and how much will that save?

I would stsrt by cutting 50-60% of public sector , look to automate ...I see way to many government workers drag their feet , only in it for the paycheck ., they know their protected and do as little as possible . Mostly grumpy faces

Many departments blow their budgets , wast the money cause they worried funding get cut or no increase .

Would keep the public sector on their toes . Have them work hard ,...or lose their job..trim the fat. Similar to how private sector operates

This is genius.

The world is full of kings and queens, who blind your eyes then steal your dreams.
It's heaven and hell!

If the claims of minimum-wage opponents are akin to saying “the sky is falling,” this report is an effort to check whether the sky did indeed fall. In this report, we examine the historical data relating to the 22 increases in the federal minimum wage between 1938 and 2009 to determine whether or not these claims—that if you raise wages, you will lose jobs—can be substantiated. We examine employment trends before and after minimum-wage increases, looking both at the overall labor market and at key indicator sectors that are most affected by minimum-wage increases. Rather than an academic study that seeks to measure causal effects using techniques such as regression analysis, this report assesses opponents’ claims about raising the minimum wage on their own terms by examining simple indicators and job trends.

The results were clear: these basic economic indicators show no correlation between federal minimum-wage increases and lower employment levels, even in the industries that are most impacted by higher minimum wages. To the contrary, in the substantial majority of instances (68 percent) overall employment increased after a federal minimum-wage increase. In the most substantially affected industries, the rates were even higher: in the leisure and hospitality sector employment rose 82 percent of the time following a federal wage increase, and in the retail sector it was 73 percent of the time. Moreover, the small minority of instances in which employment—either overall or in the indicator sectors—declined following a federal minimum-wage increase all occurred during periods of recession or near recession. That pattern strongly suggests that the few instances of such declines in employment are better explained by the overall national business cycle than by the minimum wage.

^so says brilliant left wing research. So if there is no impact or correlation genius Noodle - why not raise it to $100 per hour? How about $200 per hour? Why wouldn't that work? Seems its different in Southern California:

A new study by two researchers, one with Mathematica Policy Research and the other with Harvard Business School, focused on "the impact of the minimum wage on restaurant closures using data from the San Francisco Bay area." The researchers concluded that "a $1 increase in the minimum wage leads to approximately a 4 to 10 percent increase in the likelihood of exit." They wrote: "The evidence suggests that higher minimum wages increase overall exit rates for restaurants. However, lower quality restaurants, which are already closer to the margin of exit, are disproportionately impacted by increases to the minimum wage." So the most vulnerable restaurants -- the more "affordable" ones -- appear to be the most hurt by a minimum wage hike.

In January, the East Bay Times reported that 60 restaurants in the San Francisco Bay area had shuttered their doors since September. Even the mighty have fallen. The Fresno Bee recently wrote: "Joining San Francisco's restaurant die-off was rising star AQ, which in 2012 was named a James Beard Award finalist for the best new restaurant in America. The restaurant's profit margins went from a reported 8.5 percent in 2012 to 1.5 percent by 2015. Most restaurants are thought to require margins of 3 and 5 percent."

In San Diego, voters approved an $11.50 per hour minimum wage for 2017, up from an $8 minimum wage in June 2014. This is an increase of 44 percent -- in just two and a half years! The San Diego Union Tribune recently reported: "Evidence has emerged of an economic dark side to San Diego's decision last year to vault over the state minimum wage -- it may have already destroyed thousands of jobs for low-wage workers even as higher pay helps tens of thousands of others.

Finland has been giving 2,000 of its citizens an unconditional income for the last five months and some are already seeing the benefits, reporting decreased stress, greater incentives to find work and more time to pursue business ideas.

Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

You have neither any evidence to support your claims nor anything to refute the real world example given earlier that disproves your hypothesis. All you can respond with is fallacious attempts full of nonsensical hypotheticals in order to try and derail the conversation. You're positively Presidential, moa.

Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

Finland has been giving 2,000 of its citizens an unconditional income for the last five months and some are already seeing the benefits, reporting decreased stress, greater incentives to find work and more time to pursue business ideas.

Exactly what I would expect from a guy whose economic logic consists of "government will spend money on green projects and our economy will get diverse and we will all get rich" - we get it, nobody has to work, money grows on solar farms.

Minimun wage laws hurt people and there is the proof

You have neither any evidence to support your claims nor anything to refute the real world example given earlier that disproves your hypothesis. All you can respond with is fallacious attempts full of nonsensical hypotheticals in order to try and derail the conversation. You're positively Presidential, moa.

I posted the proof, you just chose to ignore it and live in fairyland / ivory tower. I know this is gonna hurt people I play pool with in the bar (either more expense for beer, or less servers), but I'm sure it won't hurt your chardonnay sipping hipster friends.

" The researchers concluded that "a $1 increase in the minimum wage leads to approximately a 4 to 10 percent increase in the likelihood of exit." They wrote: "The evidence suggests that higher minimum wages increase overall exit rates for restaurants. However, lower quality restaurants, which are already closer to the margin of exit, are disproportionately impacted by increases to the minimum wage." So the most vulnerable restaurants -- the more "affordable" ones -- appear to be the most hurt by a minimum wage hike.

Finland has been giving 2,000 of its citizens an unconditional income for the last five months and some are already seeing the benefits, reporting decreased stress, greater incentives to find work and more time to pursue business ideas.

Exactly what I would expect from a guy whose economic logic consists of "government will spend money on green projects and our economy will get diverse and we will all get rich" - we get it, nobody has to work, money grows on solar farms.

If we all become self sufficient we should be able work less/ or not work at all. Imagine no power bill or going grocery stor for food . Having a 3D printer make those cheap dollar store items, less government dependence ☺

And exactly the response I thought I'd get from you. Attacking the person (and poorly at that) instead of actually going at the points, while simultaneously displaying your own ignorance like a feces covered peacock who can't smell himself.

It's not even fun to debate with you any longer. You're so proud of being a compulsive regurgitator of terrible conservative rhetoric & right wing editorials while actively being against thinking for yourself that it's not even a challenge any more. You fall into the same pattern over & over, trying to take cheap shots instead of actually debating once someone provides anything that refutes your unsupported nonsense.

Pathetic.

Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

I posted the proof, you just chose to ignore it and live in fairyland / ivory tower.

No, I just don't swallow the greasy loads of postmedia op-eds like they're the gospel truth. It's like you don't even bother to google who you're quoting from or where they got their info & are willing to trumpet any right-wing rhetoric from any nutter & hold it up on the same level as actual fact-based reporting.

You're such a sad little conservative mouthpiece.

Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

I honestly believe it's the carbon tax that's wildly unpopular. We live in some weird bubble that doesn't realize that other than a couple western provinces and the US, carbon is starting to get taxed in most western markets, and often way higher. We're on the right side of this one. We were on the right side with acid rain, with the ozone layer, and we'll be on the right side here. Locals feel bitter because they believe the carbon tax is what's holding them back from insta-gravy oil jobs, when we were at the mercy of a global market that's controlled by outside forces.

Taxing carbon and making the rough slog into broadly diversifying our energy industries will be a boon down the line. Folks hurting now (and those that don't hurt at all but like to complain) will see that sooner than later in the grand scheme of things.

Can you really say that Albertan's are consuming less because of a carbon tax then fine. If not it's useless! It just means more debt .
It's up to the free market ..if consumers want organic food , they get organic. If they want to be healthy or drive electric cars it's up to them. It's not up to the almighty government and increasing their slush fund.

I didn't need subsidies or a tax to buy solar panels. All Nutley done is take money from me , so I can't do the right thing . Meanwhile she jet sets and spews more carbon than us all. She promotes stripping top soil , an industry that pollutes more than us all...more than the world's largest city's like Tokyo ....it's money and greed to her , to fund her bloated burocracy. Her lavish lifestyle

Did we get our oil sands developments by leaving it to the free markets? No. We have a mixed economy.

If we don't raise taxes, what exactly do we cut and how much will that save?

I would stsrt by cutting 50-60% of public sector , look to automate ...I see way to many government workers drag their feet , only in it for the paycheck ., they know their protected and do as little as possible . Mostly grumpy faces

Many departments blow their budgets , wast the money cause they worried funding get cut or no increase .

Would keep the public sector on their toes . Have them work hard ,...or lose their job..trim the fat. Similar to how private sector operates

Yes, I am sure that is the solution - just lay everyone off. The profitable corporations like RBC also continue to lay off people, so soon no jobs and no taxes because we will all earn $NIL so we will pay $NIL taxes, then no government and no government services because there will be no money to pay for any of that. Kids don't really need an education do they? Sick people - hospitals and doctors, well I guess no money for that either. I guess we eventually wont really need RBC either if we don't have any money to save or spend anymore. All sounds like a great idea hey?

Parents can home school ...and like mentioned in another thread . Doctors can perform surgery a continent away , using robots . It opens doors, a greater selection of care . Automating buses....or even like China they develop a LRT that Fellowes a white line on the road ....no need for tracks , it's costly.

Government workers don't really add to the tax base , they being paid with tax money ....

Being a big government city I know you guys resist the idea . But 50% less government workers is less using our roads , less maintenance, less wear and tear . ...less pollution ☺ in turn needing less taxes ☺

Sure parents can home school, the kids may not get a great education if their parents are high school drop outs. Remember, no government to provide any support to them - we can't afford it with no taxes.

Oh by the way - a few more problems those roads won't be maintained either without tax money and those doctors, well yes they can be where ever they want, but again no government money to pay them and I think the redundant home schooling parent will not be able to afford that either.

You want to live without government, fine. I think you would be surprised that so many of the things you take for granted would not be there for you. I suppose if you want you could move to some third world country and see what it is like as a preview with little or no money for public services like schools, roads, doctors, etc.. I suppose its not so bad if you are rich enough to pay for all of those things yourself, but otherwise its not so good.

I honestly believe it's the carbon tax that's wildly unpopular. We live in some weird bubble that doesn't realize that other than a couple western provinces and the US, carbon is starting to get taxed in most western markets, and often way higher. We're on the right side of this one. We were on the right side with acid rain, with the ozone layer, and we'll be on the right side here. Locals feel bitter because they believe the carbon tax is what's holding them back from insta-gravy oil jobs, when we were at the mercy of a global market that's controlled by outside forces.

Taxing carbon and making the rough slog into broadly diversifying our energy industries will be a boon down the line. Folks hurting now (and those that don't hurt at all but like to complain) will see that sooner than later in the grand scheme of things.

Can you really say that Albertan's are consuming less because of a carbon tax then fine. If not it's useless! It just means more debt .
It's up to the free market ..if consumers want organic food , they get organic. If they want to be healthy or drive electric cars it's up to them. It's not up to the almighty government and increasing their slush fund.

I didn't need subsidies or a tax to buy solar panels. All Nutley done is take money from me , so I can't do the right thing . Meanwhile she jet sets and spews more carbon than us all. She promotes stripping top soil , an industry that pollutes more than us all...more than the world's largest city's like Tokyo ....it's money and greed to her , to fund her bloated burocracy. Her lavish lifestyle

Did we get our oil sands developments by leaving it to the free markets? No. We have a mixed economy.

If we don't raise taxes, what exactly do we cut and how much will that save?

I would stsrt by cutting 50-60% of public sector , look to automate ...I see way to many government workers drag their feet , only in it for the paycheck ., they know their protected and do as little as possible . Mostly grumpy faces

Many departments blow their budgets , wast the money cause they worried funding get cut or no increase .

Would keep the public sector on their toes . Have them work hard ,...or lose their job..trim the fat. Similar to how private sector operates

Yes, I am sure that is the solution - just lay everyone off. The profitable corporations like RBC also continue to lay off people, so soon no jobs and no taxes because we will all earn $NIL so we will pay $NIL taxes, then no government and no government services because there will be no money to pay for any of that. Kids don't really need an education do they? Sick people - hospitals and doctors, well I guess no money for that either. I guess we eventually wont really need RBC either if we don't have any money to save or spend anymore. All sounds like a great idea hey?

Parents can home school ...and like mentioned in another thread . Doctors can perform surgery a continent away , using robots . It opens doors, a greater selection of care . Automating buses....or even like China they develop a LRT that Fellowes a white line on the road ....no need for tracks , it's costly.

Government workers don't really add to the tax base , they being paid with tax money ....

Being a big government city I know you guys resist the idea . But 50% less government workers is less using our roads , less maintenance, less wear and tear . ...less pollution ☺ in turn needing less taxes ☺

Those 170,000-200,000 people you're cutting aren't all going to exit the province. Most will need other jobs. Many have professional designations. They will still be using the roads, contributing to maintenance, wear and tear, etc. I guess while you're at it, you might as well lay off half of the city workers too, because they are government workers as well on the tax payer dime. Oh wait, we won't have anyone to do road work any longer. Contract it out you say? Well, that costs more money, because now you're paying for all of the overhead, so the whole idea has become redundant in the first place. Wait. Government workers spend their money in the local economy? So, you just cut 200,000 workers across Alberta that were pumping money into local businesses. 200k at 65k is 13 billion dollars out of the economy before taxes. After tax, still about 8.5 billion that you're taking out of the economy.

Drastic cuts like that would have drastic effects on the rest of the economy and businesses. If a major industry closes shop in a small town, usually that town ceases to function. Well, if you took away more than half of government jobs, the local economy(ies) would suffer in a massive way. It is called trickle down economics for a reason. Perhaps, you should think more strategically before you toss around these grand ideas of how to fix the economy.

I honestly believe it's the carbon tax that's wildly unpopular. We live in some weird bubble that doesn't realize that other than a couple western provinces and the US, carbon is starting to get taxed in most western markets, and often way higher. We're on the right side of this one. We were on the right side with acid rain, with the ozone layer, and we'll be on the right side here. Locals feel bitter because they believe the carbon tax is what's holding them back from insta-gravy oil jobs, when we were at the mercy of a global market that's controlled by outside forces.

Taxing carbon and making the rough slog into broadly diversifying our energy industries will be a boon down the line. Folks hurting now (and those that don't hurt at all but like to complain) will see that sooner than later in the grand scheme of things.

Can you really say that Albertan's are consuming less because of a carbon tax then fine. If not it's useless! It just means more debt .
It's up to the free market ..if consumers want organic food , they get organic. If they want to be healthy or drive electric cars it's up to them. It's not up to the almighty government and increasing their slush fund.

I didn't need subsidies or a tax to buy solar panels. All Nutley done is take money from me , so I can't do the right thing . Meanwhile she jet sets and spews more carbon than us all. She promotes stripping top soil , an industry that pollutes more than us all...more than the world's largest city's like Tokyo ....it's money and greed to her , to fund her bloated burocracy. Her lavish lifestyle

Did we get our oil sands developments by leaving it to the free markets? No. We have a mixed economy.

If we don't raise taxes, what exactly do we cut and how much will that save?

I would stsrt by cutting 50-60% of public sector , look to automate ...I see way to many government workers drag their feet , only in it for the paycheck ., they know their protected and do as little as possible . Mostly grumpy faces

Many departments blow their budgets , wast the money cause they worried funding get cut or no increase .

Would keep the public sector on their toes . Have them work hard ,...or lose their job..trim the fat. Similar to how private sector operates

Yes, I am sure that is the solution - just lay everyone off. The profitable corporations like RBC also continue to lay off people, so soon no jobs and no taxes because we will all earn $NIL so we will pay $NIL taxes, then no government and no government services because there will be no money to pay for any of that. Kids don't really need an education do they? Sick people - hospitals and doctors, well I guess no money for that either. I guess we eventually wont really need RBC either if we don't have any money to save or spend anymore. All sounds like a great idea hey?

Parents can home school ...and like mentioned in another thread . Doctors can perform surgery a continent away , using robots . It opens doors, a greater selection of care . Automating buses....or even like China they develop a LRT that Fellowes a white line on the road ....no need for tracks , it's costly.

Government workers don't really add to the tax base , they being paid with tax money ....

Being a big government city I know you guys resist the idea . But 50% less government workers is less using our roads , less maintenance, less wear and tear . ...less pollution ☺ in turn needing less taxes ☺

Those 170,000-200,000 people you're cutting aren't all going to exit the province. Most will need other jobs. Many have professional designations. They will still be using the roads, contributing to maintenance, wear and tear, etc. I guess while you're at it, you might as well lay off half of the city workers too, because they are government workers as well on the tax payer dime. Oh wait, we won't have anyone to do road work any longer. Contract it out you say? Well, that costs more money, because now you're paying for all of the overhead, so the whole idea has become redundant in the first place. Wait. Government workers spend their money in the local economy? So, you just cut 200,000 workers across Alberta that were pumping money into local businesses. 200k at 65k is 13 billion dollars out of the economy before taxes. After tax, still about 8.5 billion that you're taking out of the economy.

Drastic cuts like that would have drastic effects on the rest of the economy and businesses. If a major industry closes shop in a small town, usually that town ceases to function. Well, if you took away more than half of government jobs, the local economy(ies) would suffer in a massive way. It is called trickle down economics for a reason. Perhaps, you should think more strategically before you toss around these grand ideas of how to fix the economy.

I remember the Ralph cuts , we didn't do with out , services were about same $40 oil and balanced budgets ☺

Seeing how incompetent the city is at building or maintaining , good idea , trim that fat too !

Teach them how to be efficient , put in hard days work . Done paying for incompetence

^agreed - I just remember getting the Ralph bucks cheque (which is in my children's RESPs). My kids still went to school (and I know they won't care now if they have to share the classroom with a couple of extra kids), hospital wait times were no more horrible than they are now. We just pay more for the same stuff.

^agreed - I just remember getting the Ralph bucks cheque (which is in my children's RESPs). My kids still went to school (and I know they won't care now if they have to share the classroom with a couple of extra kids), hospital wait times were no more horrible than they are now. We just pay more for the same stuff.

^agreed - I just remember getting the Ralph bucks cheque (which is in my children's RESPs). My kids still went to school (and I know they won't care now if they have to share the classroom with a couple of extra kids), hospital wait times were no more horrible than they are now. We just pay more for the same stuff.

Well there is still inflation and even though the annual rate is not that high, it becomes more significant after 10 or 15 years. I don't pay the same for hardly anything as I did when Ralph was premier. Also Klein was good at blowing up old hospitals, but not as good at maintaining or replacing them (same for schools). Alberta's population has also increased a lot since then, so some of the spending is going towards that too.

^agreed - I just remember getting the Ralph bucks cheque (which is in my children's RESPs). My kids still went to school (and I know they won't care now if they have to share the classroom with a couple of extra kids), hospital wait times were no more horrible than they are now. We just pay more for the same stuff.

Well there is still inflation and even though the annual rate is not that high, it becomes more significant after 10 or 15 years. I don't pay the same for hardly anything as I did when Ralph was premier. Also Klein was good at blowing up old hospitals, but not as good at maintaining or replacing them (same for schools). Alberta's population has also increased a lot since then, so some of the spending is going towards that too.

There was inflation and growth when Klein was around too. But if even if inflation and growth is some how a new thing , how come the city increases it's taxes double , triple of inflation , or growth . + the extra user fees , cash cows, sin taxes.

Did you know 42% of household income goes to taxes!

Now understand taxes are a %. So even with inflation revenue increases , as home values etc go up. It should in theory balance itself out

Now using exponential theory / doubling time <~~~kind of like how that compound interest thingy works.. . In 20-30 years... a 100% of what we make will go to taxes

I love reading how all you lefties on this board that didn't vote for Jim P in the last election because "we need change," are all whining now over RN now that the honeymoon is over. If RN gets a 2nd term, I'd be surprised. #Witch hunt.

I love reading how all you lefties on this board that didn't vote for Jim P in the last election because "we need change," are all whining now over RN now that the honeymoon is over. If RN gets a 2nd term, I'd be surprised. #Witch hunt.

Jim P raised taxes on gas and beer . That leftard was another huge reason PC lost my vote .

I love reading how all you lefties on this board that didn't vote for Jim P in the last election because "we need change," are all whining now over RN now that the honeymoon is over. If RN gets a 2nd term, I'd be surprised. #Witch hunt.

I'm not whining. But you right wingers are

The world is full of kings and queens, who blind your eyes then steal your dreams.
It's heaven and hell!

Haha Mandel he couldn't even get elected in his own riding . Probably thinks he can revitalize Alberta with a large unicorn .

The biggest joke for me about Mandel - is how he won, became health minister, then decided to shaft Edmonton over the Misericordia replacement - that hospital would already be getting replaced if he hadn't sold it out. In the meantime, Calgary has a half empty ew hospital in the deep south, and a brand new cancer center just announced for 2020.

All hospitals should be public if getting public money - just like schools. Edmonton is getting a new public operated hospital in the SW and it is about time. I don't support public funds going to private hospitals which the Catholic ones are - they are not publicly operated and set their own rules. If we are going to fund the Catholic ones - lets support construction of one for the Muslims, Jews, Buddhists etc.

The Calgary south hospital was in the works for YEARS before Mandel had anything to do with it. And we are getting a new south hospital. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Here is Notley ripping into Mandel on this very issue- Mandel was a roadblock who ultimately came out against replacing the hospital. I don't often agree with Notley - but she was bang on here - a bit "rich" for Mandel to claim he now represents the "center", unless he thinks that "center" is way south of Edmonton:

The PC government has long been under fire to replace the 45-year-old facility. Those calls were renewed Thursday afternoon by NDP Leader Rachel Notley.

“My message to our Minister of Health, who seems to think that after over 10 years of being told repeatedly by every expert within his ministry that we need to replace the Misericordia Hospital, that his decision that somehow this needs more deliberation and more study is absolutely ridiculous,” said Notley.

When asked about replacing the facility Thursday afternoon, Mandel would not give a solid yes or no. He says the province needs to look at the city and province as a whole.

“We’re evaluating the options, what we need to do,” Mandel said of the Misericordia. “The fact really exists that both Edmonton and Calgary have a shortage of acute care beds and when you look at plans, right now we’re just in the early stages of evaluating.”

Haha Mandel he couldn't even get elected in his own riding . Probably thinks he can revitalize Alberta with a large unicorn .

The biggest joke for me about Mandel - is how he won, became health minister, then decided to shaft Edmonton over the Misericordia replacement - that hospital would already be getting replaced if he hadn't sold it out. In the meantime, Calgary has a half empty ew hospital in the deep south, and a brand new cancer center just announced for 2020.

Was Mandel even elected ? I thought he was parachuted in with Prentice

September 15, 2014, he was appointed to the provincial cabinet of Premier*Jim Prenticeas Minister of Health, despite not holding a seat in the*Legislative Assembly of Alberta.[1]He was subsequently named as the*Alberta*https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Mandel

The Calgary south hospital was in the works for YEARS before Mandel had anything to do with it. And we are getting a new south hospital. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Here is Notley ripping into Mandel on this very issue- Mandel was a roadblock who ultimately came out against replacing the hospital. I don't often agree with Notley - but she was bang on here - a bit "rich" for Mandel to claim he now represents the "center", unless he thinks that "center" is way south of Edmonton:

The PC government has long been under fire to replace the 45-year-old facility. Those calls were renewed Thursday afternoon by NDP Leader Rachel Notley.

“My message to our Minister of Health, who seems to think that after over 10 years of being told repeatedly by every expert within his ministry that we need to replace the Misericordia Hospital, that his decision that somehow this needs more deliberation and more study is absolutely ridiculous,” said Notley.

When asked about replacing the facility Thursday afternoon, Mandel would not give a solid yes or no. He says the province needs to look at the city and province as a whole.

“We’re evaluating the options, what we need to do,” Mandel said of the Misericordia. “The fact really exists that both Edmonton and Calgary have a shortage of acute care beds and when you look at plans, right now we’re just in the early stages of evaluating.”

I love reading how all you lefties on this board that didn't vote for Jim P in the last election because "we need change," are all whining now over RN now that the honeymoon is over. If RN gets a 2nd term, I'd be surprised. #Witch hunt.

I'm not whining. But you right wingers are

I'm not whining I'm , and enjoying watching all of you traitor pc and rank and file left people whining because you voted RN. Although I admit she's done some good things, like promoting our oil industry flying in the face of your comrades in BC. I'm split on the carbon tax. other wise I'd say 50-50 ish.I wouldn't worry about the pc's though, next election, we'll be back!

Was Mandel even elected ? I thought he was parachuted in with Prentice

September 15, 2014, he was appointed to the provincial cabinet of Premier*Jim Prenticeas Minister of Health, despite not holding a seat in the*Legislative Assembly of Alberta.[1]He was subsequently named as the*Alberta*https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Mandel

To Top_Dawg's recollection, Mayor Morgentaler was subsequently elected in a byelection.

And then got his azz kicked in the general election like most of the PC MLAs.